System Writer

Good Afternoon Talk Page Consensus Participants,

At the recommendation of both @Muboshgu and @discospinster, I am recommending the following edits for the Marie Newman public figure page:

BACKGROUND

As a new Wiki Editor, I was quite unfamiliar with the process and simply sought to correct the history on the Marie Newman public figure page.

@Discospinster corrected me and suggested we start this consensus.

The process described in the current content under Marie Newman's page called "House Ethics Committee Investigation " has some errors and undocumented information. However most importantly, the ethics review ( it was never an investigation, just a review), was completed and no violation of any kind was sought, cited or reported.

I have consulted the top ethics firm, Perkins & Coie, Washington DC team who is quite familiar with this ethics review as well as several reporters who covered the matter.

To be clear, all of the information in the current text is no longer true because they were proven to be falsehoods in the matter review, however, both legal counsel and the journalists indicated that those were reported and are fair game to include. I am simply noting they were proven false for your knowledge.

Based on that expert and third party input, the following edits have been recommended to be fair and follow Wiki Guidelines.

RECOMMENDED EDITS FOR THE CONSENSUS GROUP

1. The title of section should be titled "House Ethics Committee Review", not investigation. As you will see in the following report, Congresswoman Newman's matter was reviewed and closed, but is not listed as an investigation in the 117th congress list of investigations - beginning on page 19-22 of the report with "The Committee publicly addressed 50 investigative matters during the 117th Congress". The committee never empaneled an ISC (investigative subcommittee)and therefore was never pursued as an investigative matter. Here is the report I noted above: https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/117th%20Congress%20Summary%20of%20Activities.pdf

EDIT RECO: remove the word "investigation" and replace with "review"

2. In the last sentence, "In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Newman had made a similar contract guaranteeing a job to another person, Shadin Maali, who had previously conducted political outreach for Chehade.[48][49][50]" is a full-on falsehood. The articles cited never produced the said contract and were reported on based on one unnamed source who was from the opponent's campaign. Hence there was no document and no information to support the allegation in any of these articles listed

EDIT RECO: Remove this sentence: "In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Newman had made a similar contract guaranteeing a job to another person, Shadin Maali, who had previously conducted political outreach for Chehade.[48][49][50]"

3. As you can see in the summary report provided here:https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/117th%20Congress%20Summary%20of%20Activities.pdf, the matter was closed in the late summer of 2022. There was no investigative subcommittee investigation because it was not deemed needed and the matter was terminated with no violation. Therefore I recommend adding a final sentence to this section:

EDIT RECO: (add as a final sentence in this section) The ethics review reported on above was closed with no ISC (Investigative SubCommittee) implemented and no violations were sought or delivered < https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/117th%20Congress%20Summary%20of%20Activities.pdf >.

PLEASE REVIEW THE ABOVE AND LET ME KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME,

January 2023

Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that you recently removed content from Marie Newman without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ... discospinster _talk 23:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you have made a mistake. The information you have restored is now outdated. I have included official references and updated information. I assume you will now put the correct and accurate update I shared into the text. Thank you and please confirm.

Appreciatively System Writer (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not outdated, it is the background of the event, and it is reliably sourced. If you continue to remove it without good reason you will be blocked from editing. ... discospinster _talk 04:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Good Morning,

The information is now outdated. Did you read all 60 pages of the report. The matter was proven wrong. The report was false and proven so. The information is all months old. The report was produced this week and demonstrates it was wrong. May we speak on the phone? I think your not clear about much of the information. Also, I would not call news reports reliable in many instances.

May we arrange a call? 2601:243:2080:D2E0:200E:64E6:8032:DDB3 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Good Morning Discospinster,

Happy to work on the consensus model. How does it get initiated and how do I participate? thank you System Writer (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Good Afternoon Talk Page Consensus Participants,

At the recommendation of both @Muboshgu and @discospinster, I am recommending the following edits for the Marie Newman public figure page:

BACKGROUND

As a new Wiki Editor, I was quite unfamiliar with the process and simply sought to correct the history on the Marie Newman public figure page.

@Discospinster corrected me and suggested we start this consensus.

The process described in the current content under Marie Newman's page called "House Ethics Committee Investigation " has some errors and undocumented information. However most importantly, the ethics review ( it was never an investigation, just a review), was completed and no violation of any kind was sought, cited or reported.

I have consulted the top ethics firm, Perkins & Coie, Washington DC team who is quite familiar with this ethics review as well as several reporters who covered the matter.

To be clear, all of the information in the current text is no longer true because they were proven to be falsehoods in the matter review, however, both legal counsel and the journalists indicated that those were reported and are fair game to include. I am simply noting they were proven false for your knowledge.

Based on that expert and third party input, the following edits have been recommended to be fair and follow Wiki Guidelines.

RECOMMENDED EDITS FOR THE CONSENSUS GROUP

1. The title of section should be titled "House Ethics Committee Review", not investigation. As you will see in the following report, Congresswoman Newman's matter was reviewed and closed, but is not listed as an investigation in the 117th congress list of investigations - beginning on page 19-22 of the report with "The Committee publicly addressed 50 investigative matters during the 117th Congress". The committee never empaneled an ISC (investigative subcommittee)and therefore was never pursued as an investigative matter. Here is the report I noted above: https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/117th%20Congress%20Summary%20of%20Activities.pdf

EDIT RECO: remove the word "investigation" and replace with "review"

2. In the last sentence, "In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Newman had made a similar contract guaranteeing a job to another person, Shadin Maali, who had previously conducted political outreach for Chehade.[48][49][50]" is a full-on falsehood. The articles cited never produced the said contract and were reported on based on one unnamed source who was from the opponent's campaign. Hence there was no document and no information to support the allegation in any of these articles listed

EDIT RECO: Remove this sentence: "In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Newman had made a similar contract guaranteeing a job to another person, Shadin Maali, who had previously conducted political outreach for Chehade.[48][49][50]"

3. As you can see in the summary report provided here:https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/117th%20Congress%20Summary%20of%20Activities.pdf, the matter was closed in the late summer of 2022. There was no investigative subcommittee investigation because it was not deemed needed and the matter was terminated with no violation. Therefore I recommend adding a final sentence to this section:

EDIT RECO: (add as a final sentence in this section) The ethics review reported on above was closed with no ISC (Investigative SubCommittee) implemented and no violations were sought or delivered < https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/117th%20Congress%20Summary%20of%20Activities.pdf >.

PLEASE REVIEW THE ABOVE AND LET ME KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, System Writer (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I have talked to several journalists that track both ethics reviews and investigations as well as some Wikepedia experts. They all indicate we are both right here. The preceding information should stay and the most recent update should be included with the most reliable source listed - the actually US House Ethics final report. Please see I have restored all of the existing information and added the new documented information about the conclusion. I have also written the reason for the addition in my publishing changes entry. Please reach back with questions. System Writer (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You're going to have to work with us to form a WP:CONSENSUS on what changes you want made. Otherwise, nothing will change on that page. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I'm very happy to work on a consensus model. How does one go about doing that? Can you share the process and what steps I would need to take?

many thanks, System Writer (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to work on a consensus process? I read the policy and sounds very fair. It is just unclear how it actually is initiated or what my next steps are to facilitate/contribute. Please let me know how I can help or participate. Many thanks, System Writer (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Muboshgu,

I placed this recommendation on the TALK Page. Shall I also enter it into the actual page?

Good Afternoon Talk Page Consensus Participants,

At the recommendation of both @Muboshgu and @discospinster, I am recommending the following edits for the Marie Newman public figure page:

BACKGROUND

As a new Wiki Editor, I was quite unfamiliar with the process and simply sought to correct the history on the Marie Newman public figure page.

@Discospinster corrected me and suggested we start this consensus.

The process described in the current content under Marie Newman's page called "House Ethics Committee Investigation " has some errors and undocumented information. However most importantly, the ethics review ( it was never an investigation, just a review), was completed and no violation of any kind was sought, cited or reported.

I have consulted the top ethics firm, Perkins & Coie, Washington DC team who is quite familiar with this ethics review as well as several reporters who covered the matter.

To be clear, all of the information in the current text is no longer true because they were proven to be falsehoods in the matter review, however, both legal counsel and the journalists indicated that those were reported and are fair game to include. I am simply noting they were proven false for your knowledge.

Based on that expert and third party input, the following edits have been recommended to be fair and follow Wiki Guidelines.

RECOMMENDED EDITS FOR THE CONSENSUS GROUP

1. The title of section should be titled "House Ethics Committee Review", not investigation. As you will see in the following report, Congresswoman Newman's matter was reviewed and closed, but is not listed as an investigation in the 117th congress list of investigations - beginning on page 19-22 of the report with "The Committee publicly addressed 50 investigative matters during the 117th Congress". The committee never empaneled an ISC (investigative subcommittee)and therefore was never pursued as an investigative matter. Here is the report I noted above: https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/117th%20Congress%20Summary%20of%20Activities.pdf

EDIT RECO: remove the word "investigation" and replace with "review"

2. In the last sentence, "In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Newman had made a similar contract guaranteeing a job to another person, Shadin Maali, who had previously conducted political outreach for Chehade.[48][49][50]" is a full-on falsehood. The articles cited never produced the said contract and were reported on based on one unnamed source who was from the opponent's campaign. Hence there was no document and no information to support the allegation in any of these articles listed

EDIT RECO: Remove this sentence: "In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Newman had made a similar contract guaranteeing a job to another person, Shadin Maali, who had previously conducted political outreach for Chehade.[48][49][50]"

3. As you can see in the summary report provided here:https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/117th%20Congress%20Summary%20of%20Activities.pdf, the matter was closed in the late summer of 2022. There was no investigative subcommittee investigation because it was not deemed needed and the matter was terminated with no violation. Therefore I recommend adding a final sentence to this section:

EDIT RECO: (add as a final sentence in this section) The ethics review reported on above was closed with no ISC (Investigative SubCommittee) implemented and no violations were sought or delivered < https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/117th%20Congress%20Summary%20of%20Activities.pdf >.

PLEASE REVIEW THE ABOVE AND LET ME KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, System Writer (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Good Morning @Moboshgu,

I hope this finds you well. I have put a documented set of additions and revisions on the talk page for Marie Newman to comply with the Consensus Model. What are the next steps? Do you and @Discospinster need to review? Or Are there others? Please advise on next steps? System Writer (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)